A. The Defendant, without any intention to commit an indecent act, committed a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, with the intent of merely indicating friendlyness or having a physical contact against the victim, and each act recorded in the facts charged does not violate the social rules.

(b) Sentencing of the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended sentence, community service, 80 hours, and 40 hours of the sexual assault treatment lecture.

2. Determination

A. In the trial process of the appellate court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence, and the judgment of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, the judgment on fact-finding in the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court rejected all the Defendant’s arguments by taking into account the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning: the content and degree of the act of contact, the situation and duration of the act of contact, the situation and duration of the act of contact with the Defendant; the victim’s speech at the time of contact; the victim’s response at the time of contact; and the situation where the Defendant ceased contact

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair in light of logical and empirical rules, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, it is true.